Brilliantly put. Not sure why people are so adamant on rewriting history, much less correlating our success with how city have done it. We were out spent by many for much of the 90s then people say oh that's because of the class of 92. Eh, yes exactly. Why would that be a detracting point
No you didn't, also Mkhi wasn't a £40m player and was certainly valued lower when he left than when he joined. Didn't you sign him for something like £30m?
Because honestly I don't really think it's a major factor in ADUG's ownership of City, despite those Khaldoon quotes. I think Sheikh Mansour bought City as an investment and because he likes football, much like Sheikh Mohammed built Godolphin because he loves horses. If the major objective was sportswashing, then yes I think it's failed. The UAE's image today in the UK is worse than it was in 2008. If the intent was a broader UAE investment play to encourage people to fly on Etihad and travel to the UAE etc., then a simple sponsorship would've been a lot easier and cheaper. There's no doubt that there is much more attention on the UAE in the Western media, including negative publicity, than I can ever remember. Over the past year there's been plenty of negative stories about the justice system in the UAE (which is completely unfit for purpose) when a UK citizen or resident is caught up in it (e.g. Matthew Hedges). Detained in Dubai have been very effective at focusing media attention on the UAE in many of these cases.
The ban for signing domestic youth players is the same one handed down to Everton and Liverpool. I think it's a safe bet that plenty of other clubs have committed similar misdemeanours but have so far gone unpunished. Likewise, Chelsea, Atletico Madrid, Real Madrid, and Barcelona have all received bans from FIFA for misdemeanours in signing players. If City are to receive a similar fate, again we would not be alone in this. The idea that City are some lone force for bad in football while everyone else operates in a world governed by ethics is illusory. It's recent memory that AC Milan and Juventus were found guilty of colluding with match officials. Inter also seemed to be doing it but escaped any punishment. There is a long history of the Spanish state's favourable relations with Real Madrid and Barcelona, and of a domestic system that is so heavily skewed in favour of the elite top two sides that in the long-term their positions at the top are untouchable.
I think you are kidding yourself. Hasn't Mansour visited Manchester like once since he's owned the club? Look at what people do not what their propaganda arm like to portray. You have a point on the whole sponsorship issue mind, it is something that should be looked at but is probably to opaque to ever be effectively controlled. That said, ownership is a different order of magnitude to sponsorship. A state owned club is simply too powerful to ever be controlled or made to obey the rules.
I said that City were the most corrupt force in football 'today', being the operative word. Just because club x has been done for unethical practices does not exonerate City from their run of brazen rule breaking. I haven't read about Everton but the way Liverpool behaved in the case they were done for was disgusting.
Yes true, he's attended one game vs. Liverpool several years ago. I know he follows all the games but it's obviously not the same as being there in person. Khaldoon, on the other hand, attends regularly.
The interesting thing was there were a few stories midseason that him to juventus was a signed deal.
Liverpool have spent reasonably and are competing. Only Citys finanial doping has made cash king for City, stopping properly run clubs from winning.
The overall discussion is that the structure of football is distorted towards a few elite clubs at the expense of the competitiveness of the game. I absolutely agree that City's sugar daddy makes that distortion worse. But Liverpool, having been one of the key players working since the 1980s to create that distorted structure, aren't exactly the best example to use.
Why is it only City fans that can't separate self-generated wealth, with astute purchases and sales, from record breaking donations by a wealthy state.
I can separate it just fine. I will try to make my perspective clearer.
Safe to say Southampton would have had more chance to finish higher in the league without City's financial doping.
I think you misunderstand. The ideal is that clubs spending their earnings will still have inequalities, but which can be overcome or squandered by good or bad management.
That's why Arsenal aim to get top 4 and to the Champions League group stage.
Why is it fair that a club like Southampton does everything the right way, only for richer clubs like Liverpool to profit?
Southampton have probably made more money out of Liverpool than they have through 10 years of ticket sales.
I doubt Southampton fans are watching VVD and Mane thinking, "it's awesome, all the money we made off of them, helped us avoid relegation".
Or, more palatable, it need more real effort to establish parity and implement disincentives for financial dopers.
4/6 now with billy hill from 4/1 2 days ago. Don’t be too sure
Doubt it.
I remember when SkyBet once had Vidal at 1/16 to join United. If you're looking at bookmakers odds to tell you the likelihood of a transfer happening, you're going to end up just as disappointed as if you read the rumours in the press. Guardiola is 100% not going to Juventus this summer.
Is it possible to bet on him staying at City, what are those odds?
It's easy money for them.
I've looked but can't find any. SkyBet don't seem to offer their odds on players to stay at the minute, they used to, I've made quite a bit on that in the past because the market is very volatile and reacts to rumours that can have no legitimacy whatsoever. Not sure if they ever used to offer it on managers though and I can't find anywhere that does. @Spiersey any idea mate?
Cheers, had a browse myself and found nothing. I'd be tempted to put some money on him staying. In the super unlikely event I'd lose the money, I'd still be kinda amused.
Funny thing is, City were the first club in England to pay over £1 million for a player (Kevin Reeves) back in 1980. It was 1987 before we paid in excess of that figure, for Peter Beardsley. & let me just remind you that Southampton are not the only ones who've lost their top players to the richer clubs. Does the name Raheem Sterling ring any bells ? How many key players have you had taken off your hands in recent years ? Key players like Sterling, Suarez, & Coutinho.
For stuff like that (where it's pretty likely he'll stay) bookies usually don't offer the market for him to remain and will just say 'all bets settled as lost if he remains at City' Skybet and Betvictor usually the best for manager markets I think, if they don't have then I doubt anywhere will.
I once stuck £200 on ranieri becoming city manager at 4/1 because my mate drove him there in a taxi, he was going to get the job but they faffed around and he went to juve instead. Never got involved in this market since then (pretty sure my memory is right on who it was I still have nightmares about it)
Found 100/1 on him being next united manager if helps
The PSG president al khelaifi is under investigation for “active corruption” in track sports, these guys operate under different rules and don’t care if anyone else is playing by the rules as they can buy their way out of it. No one has a chance of a competing long term while they are allowed to do what they want.
This is the issue that needs to be sorted by the right governing body, UEFA , Fifa, premier league etc., but money talks the right back hander to the right person and shh know one will know? Where's there's money there's corruption .
That is why that europa final is where it is, someone got a nice bonus out of that, similar to Qatar getting the World Cup I guess. It does put me off football some days, usually when I’m watching united but that’s a different issue
I was talking about structural changes in football that concentrated more revenue in the hands of the elite few. When you make the game about money, I have no sympathy for anyone that gets upset when someone richer comes along. Domestically: end of shared ticket revenue, creation of PL, introduction of PL FFP, re-allocation of international broadcast revenue. Liverpool have been instrumental in every single event I've referenced, each of which has or will lead to greater inequality in the game. You're now at the forefront of pressuring UEFA to re-punish City for breaching UEFA FFP, and your owner is on record as referencing UEFA FFP as a key part of his decision to buy Liverpool? Why? Because he knew it would help to protect Liverpool's position and revenue streams, and ensure his investment was as safe as possible.
Re-punish? You’ve broken the rules again and again and again. I think the double payments made to the one manager we know about is as dubious as it gets. Has he even bothered denying it? Pep wouldn’t answer it and god knows how many players have had this arrangement. Why does no one ever seem to want to leave city in their prime, their love for the club? Most homes games have the atmosphere of a wet fart after a curry so it can’t be that. The tradition? Who Shaun goater. The history? That play off final 2 divisions below united while they won the champions league. The last time you won the league pre premiership united won the European cup.
